Burns v. Reed

Background

Cathy Burns, a woman in Muncie, Indiana, reported an unknown assailant and later became the police’s primary suspect. Police interviewed her under hypnosis after consulting Chief Deputy Prosecutor Richard Reed, who told them they could proceed. After hypnosis, officers said she confessed and Reed told them they “probably had probable cause.” Reed then questioned an officer at a closed probable-cause hearing and the judge issued a search warrant. Charges were later dropped and Burns sued under federal civil-rights law seeking damages.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether prosecutors have absolute immunity for (1) courtroom acts that support warrants and (2) giving legal advice to police. Relying on past decisions and common-law privileges, the Court held that appearing and presenting evidence at a probable-cause hearing is covered by absolute immunity because it is part of the judicial phase. But the Court ruled there is no historical basis to extend absolute immunity to out-of-court legal advice to police, leaving that function subject to qualified or normal liability rules.

Real world impact

The decision protects prosecutors from damages suits over their in-court advocacy when seeking warrants, but it removes a blanket shield for prosecutors who advise police in investigations. People who claim constitutional injury from a prosecutor’s pretrial advice may bring lawsuits. Police officers who follow advice still have qualified protections, so courts will decide liability case by case. The ruling affirmed in part and reversed in part the lower court.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia (joined in part by others) agreed on the main holding but argued the record also suggested Reed initiated the warrant process and that such initiation might not be absolutely immune; he would have examined that claim and opposed the directed verdict for immunity on that point.